Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project.

PURPOSE: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration. RESULTS: No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

Cisplatin and gemcitabine first-line chemotherapy followed by maintenance gemcitabine or best supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase III trial

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this randomized phase III study was to show significant difference in median time to progression (TTP) in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with single-agent gemcitabine maintenance therapy versus best supportive care following gemcitabine plus cisplatin initial first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC received gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (day 1) every 21 days. Patients achieving objective response or disease stabilization following initial gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy were randomized (2:1 fashion) to receive maintenance gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (GEM arm), or best supportive care only (BSC arm). RESULTS: Between November 1999 and November 2002, we enrolled 352 patients (median age: 57 years; stage IV disease: 74%; Karnofsky performance status (KPS) >80: 41%). Following initial therapy, 206 patients were randomized and treated with gemcitabine (138) or best supportive care (68). TTP throughout the study period was 6.6 and 5 months for GEM and BSC arms, respectively, while values for the maintenance period were 3.6 and 2.0 months (for p < 0.001 for both). Median overall survival (OS) throughout study was 13.0 months for GEM and 11.0 months for BSC arms (p = 0.195). The toxicity profile was mild, with neutropenia being most common grade 3/4 toxicities. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine, following initial therapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin, was feasible, and produced significantly longer TTP compared to best supportive care alone. Further studies are warranted to establish the place of maintenance chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂对比吉西他滨联合顺铂一线治疗伴有区域淋巴结转移的晚期非小细胞肺癌的临床研究

背景与目的：区域淋巴结转移与非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung cancer,NSCLC)患者预后显著相关,本研究旨在比较紫杉醇脂质体联合顺铂(liposomal paclitaxel plus cisplatin,LP)与吉西他滨联合顺铂(gemcitabine plus cisplatin,GP)一线治疗伴有区域淋巴结转移的NSCLC的近期疗效、远期生存及不良反应。方法：共随机入组55例患者(LP组和GP组分别为29例和26例),分别采用注射用紫杉醇脂质体(175 mg/m2)联合顺铂(75 mg/m2)和注射用吉西他滨(1 000 mg/m2)联合顺铂(75 mg/m²)进行治疗,21 d为1个周期。结果：对于肺癌原发灶,LP和GP组客观缓解率分别为37.9%和30.8%,疾病控制率分别为93.1%和80.8%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);对于区域转移的淋巴结,LP和GP组的客观缓解率分别为44.8%和15.4%,差异有统计学意义(P=0.022);LP组疾病控制率(93.1%)高于GP组(73.1%),差异无统计学意义(P=0.101)。LP和GP组的中位生存期分别为17.0个月和12.0个月,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组患者1年生存率分别为86.2%(25/29)和57.7%(15/26),差异有统计学意义(P=0.039)。LP组血小板减少、胃肠道反应发生率明显低于GP组(P<0.05),而贫血、粒细胞减少、肝肾功能损伤、过敏反应等发生率两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论：对于伴有区域淋巴结转移的NSCLC患者,LP方案可能更能使患者获益,不良反应更轻,耐受性好,值得进一步研究和临床推广应用。     

Intra-patient alternated dose escalation of paclitaxel and gemcitabine versus paclitaxel followed by fixed dose rate infusion of gemcitabine in fit elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients. A Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group randomised phase II trial

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to select the best schedule of administration for the paclitaxel plus gemcitabine combination in fit elderly patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients in stage III or IV NSCLC, aged 70 years or more and in ECOG performance status (PS)相似文献   

A randomized study comparing two different schedules of administration of cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine in advanced nonsmall cell lung carcinoma

BACKGROUND: This randomized trial was designed to investigate the feasibility, toxicity, and activity of two different schedules of gemcitabine plus cisplatin in previously untreated patients with advanced (International Union Against Cancer (UICC) Stage IIIB-IV) nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: From February 1997 to September 1998, 82 patients with advanced NSCLC were entered onto the study and were randomized to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on Days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on Day 2 (arm A) or Day 15 (arm B) every 28 days. RESULTS: All the patients were assessable for toxicity (arm A/arm B: 151/177 cycles; median, 4 of 5 cycles per patient), and the following Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported (percentage of cycles in arm A vs. arm B): anemia, 7.9% and 2.3% (P < 0.05); leukopenia, 6.0% and 6.7%; thrombocytopenia, 15.0% and 1.6% (P < 0.01); no World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicities were observed. These side effects led to gemcitabine dose reductions in 35.1% of courses in arm A and 22.0% of courses in arm B (P < 0.05) and to gemcitabine omissions in 28.5% of courses in arm A versus 7.3% of courses in arm B (P < 0.01). Dose intensities (DIs) of gemcitabine were 607.5 mg/m(2)/week in arm A and 711.6 mg/m(2)/week in arm B (P < 0.01); DIs of cisplatin were 18. 1 mg/m(2)/week in arm A and 18.8 mg/m(2)/week in arm B. The total delivered doses of gemcitabine were 9315.5 mg/m(2) in arm A and 12, 631.0 mg/m(2) in arm B (P < 0.01); the total delivered doses of cisplatin were 277.1 mg/m(2) in arm A and 333.0 mg/m(2) in arm B (P < 0.01). Response rates according to intention to treat were 40.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.5-55.3) in arm A and 45% (95% CI, 29.5-60.5) in arm B. The overall median duration of response was 7.4 months; the median time to disease progression was 6 months (95% CI, 3-9) in arm A and 9 months (95% CI, 4-14) in arm B (P < 0.02); the median overall survival was 10 months (95% CI, 7.0-12.5) in arm A and 17 months (95% CI, 13.0-21.6) in arm B (P < 0.01); the 1-year survival rates were 34% and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that arm B (cisplatin on Day 15) is less toxic than arm A (cisplatin on Day 2) and allows the administration of significantly higher total doses and dose intensities of chemotherapy. No significant differences in response rates were observed between the two schedules; patients on arm B experienced a significantly more prolonged progression free and overall survival; however, the study was not powered to detect differences in these outcomes.     

Docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin in advanced pancreatic carcinoma: randomized phase II study 40984 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Group.

PURPOSE: To define the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel plus gemcitabine or docetaxel plus cisplatin for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and WHO performance status less than 2 were randomly assigned to receive 21-day cycles of gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 85 mg/m2 on day 8 (arm A) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm B). Primary end points were tumor response and rate of febrile neutropenia grade. RESULTS: Of 96 randomly assigned patients (49 patients in arm A and 47 patients in arm B), 70 patients were analyzed for response (36 in arm A and 34 in arm B) and 89 patients were analyzed for safety (45 in arm A and 44 in arm B). Confirmed responses were observed in 19.4% (95% CI, 8.2% to 36.0%) of patients in arm A and 23.5% (95% CI, 10.7% to 41.2%) in arm B. In arm A, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.7 months), median survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.0 months), and 1-year survival was 30%. In arm B, the median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 4.6 months), median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 8.7 months), and 1-year survival was 16%. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 9% and 16% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both regimens are well tolerated and show activity in advanced pancreatic carcinoma. The safety profile and survival analyses favor docetaxel plus gemcitabine for further evaluation.     

Sequential chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus cisplatin, followed by vinorelbine, followed by gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary group study (ATOM 001)

Aim of this study was to determine the activity and toxicity of a sequential chemotherapy regimen in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty-one previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were enrolled to receive two cycles of cisplatin plus paclitaxel (80/175 mg/m(2) every 21 days), followed by two cycles of vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 21 days), followed by two cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). Forty-one patients (82%) completed the planned six cycles. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was the major toxicity (41% of patients) and it was mainly associated with vinorelbine administration. Response rate after cisplatin plus paclitaxel was 18%; this percentage increased to 41% after vinorelbine, and it reached 43% upon completion of the entire six cycle treatment program. Median survival time was 14.4 months, 1-year survival rate was 53%, and 2-year survival rate was 18%. Median time to disease progression was 6.8 months. This sequential chemotherapy regimen is feasible and active in patients with advanced NSCLC. This pilot experience provides the basis for an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing our sequential regimen versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine.     

Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether two commonly used newer platinum-based regimens offer any advantage over vinorelbine-cisplatin (reference regimen) in response rate for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days (GC arm), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion) then carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL x min), both on day 1 every 21 days (PCb arm), or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk for 12 weeks then every other week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 every 28 days (VC arm). RESULTS: Six hundred twelve patients were randomized to treatment (205 GC, 204 PCb, and 203 VC). Overall response rates for the GC (30%) and PCb (32%) arms were not significantly different from that of the VC arm (30%). There were no differences in overall survival, time to disease progression, or time to treatment failure. Median survival for the GC, PCb, and VC groups was 9.8, 9.9, and 9.5 months, respectively. Neutropenia was significantly higher on the VC arm (GC 17% or PCb 35% v VC 43% of cycles, P <.001), as was thrombocytopenia on the GC arm (GC 16% v VC 0.1% of cycles, P <.001). Alopecia and peripheral neurotoxicity were most common on the PCb arm, as was nausea/vomiting on the VC arm (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.     

Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine compared with cisplatin plus vinorelbine or cisplatin plus gemcitabine for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient's quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.     

Prolonged gemcitabine infusion in advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma: a randomized phase II study of two different schedules in combination with cisplatin

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggests that a fixed infusion rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute may be more effective than the standard 30-minute infusion of gemcitabine. To investigate the activity and toxicity of the cisplatin plus gemcitabine combination with gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate in patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), the authors conducted a randomized Phase II trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine at the 30-minute standard infusion (calibration arm) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine at a fixed infusion rate (experimental arm). METHODS: A total of 112 chemonaive patients with advanced NSCLC entered the study: 57 patients in Arm A and 55 patients in Arm B. The patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, and 15 over 30 minutes (Arm A) or at a rate of 10 mg/m2 per minute (Arm B). In both treatment arms, cisplatin at a dose of 80 mg/m2 was administered on Day 15 every 28 days. RESULTS: The overall response rates in Arms A and B were 26% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10-42%) and 34% (95% CI, 17-52%) (intent-to-treat-analysis), respectively. The median time to disease progression was 6 months (range, 1-26 months) and 8 months (range, 2-21 months), respectively, for Arms A and B and the median overall survival was 13 months (range, 2-26 months) for each arm. It is interesting to note that a high response rate (67%) of brain metastases was noted in the experimental arm. Toxicity was tolerable and comparable in the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this randomized Phase II trial demonstrated that cisplatin plus gemcitabine with gemcitabine at fixed infusion rate (10 mg/m2 per minute) is active and well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Sequential chemotherapy of cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. A single institution phase II study

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and safety of a sequential regimen of cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment was two cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks followed by two cycles of paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with inoperable NSCLC, performance status 2 or less were enrolled, including 19 patients with brain lesions. There were 23 partial responses (42%; 95% confidence interval 29-55). The median time to progression and overall survival were 5.8 and 10.3 months, respectively (6.5 and 12.8 in the patient subset without brain metastases). One-year survival rate was 47.5%. Grade III/IV neutropenia was the major side effect; it occurred in 56% of patients and was mainly limited to the first two chemotherapy cycles with cisplatin and vinorelbine. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine is a manageable and active regimen for patients with NSCLC. It deserves to be tested against a standard two-drug scheme in a phase III trial.     

Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II/III study of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network

PURPOSE: This prospective randomized study compared overall survival (OS) in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with the platinum agent-based triple drug combination of paclitaxel/carboplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) versus the nonplatinum agent-based doublet drug combination of gemcitabine/vinorelbine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced (stages IIIB, IV, and recurrent) chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC and performance status 0-2 were randomly assigned to the PCG arm (paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1, carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve of 5 on day 1, and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 21 days) or to the gemcitabine/vinorelbine arm (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days). RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were randomly assigned to the 2 arms. The median time to progression was 6 months for PCG and 3.9 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1- and 2-year progression-free survival rates of 13% and 2% versus 14% and 4% (P = .324 log rank). Median OS for PCG was 10.3 months versus 10.7 months for gemcitabine/vinorelbine with 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 38%, 12%, and 2% versus 45%, 12%, and 6%, respectively (P = 0.269 log rank). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia, nausea/vomiting, myalgia/arthralgia, and neuropathy were significantly greater in the PCG arm. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS or progression-free survival when comparing PCG and gemcitabine/vinorelbine, and gemcitabine/vinorelbine was significantly less toxic. Gemcitabine/vinorelbine is a reasonable nonplatinum agent-based doublet therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC.     

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus etoposide plus cisplatin for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Korean Cancer Study Group experience

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have demonstrated superior response rates and survivals for new agent platinum doublets than for older platinum doublets in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however, few trials have been performed in Asian populations. Thus, we conducted a randomized study to compare gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) with etoposide-cisplatin (EP) in Korean patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1-3 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Treatment was repeated every 21 days in both groups. The primary endpoint was response rate. RESULTS: Between May 2000 and December 2001, 83 patients at 9 Korean centers were enrolled in this study. The GP arm showed a significantly higher response rate (52.6% versus 19.4%; P = 0.002), a longer time to progression (4.3 months in both arms; P = 0.018) and a marginally significant prolongation of overall survival (18.3 months versus 10.9 months; P = 0.059) than the EP arm. Grades 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (18% versus 0%) was more common in the GP arm whereas grades 3 and 4 neutropenia was more common in EP arm (48.7% versus 71.8%). Other toxicities were comparable in both arms. CONCLUSION: GP provided a significantly higher response rate and a longer time to progression than EP and should be considered a standard treatment in advanced NSCLC in Korean population.     

A randomized phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND: Third-generation platinum-based combinations are established as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Non-platinum regimens could be an alternative if they show similar efficacy with better tolerability. This randomized phase II trial compared the objective tumor response rate (ORR) of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Secondary objectives included time to disease progression (TTP), overall survival and toxicity. METHODS: Chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV NSCLC and Karnofsky performance status >70 were assigned to receive either (a) gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) plus vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 for 2 cycles, followed by gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 2000mg/m(2) on day 1 (GV-GI arm) for 2 cycles or (b) gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with cisplatin 70mg/m(2) on day 1 (GC arm) for 4 cycles. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2003, 102 patients were enrolled (50 on the GV-GI arm and 52 on the GC arm). Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (GV-GI arm: median age 59 years, 84% male, 22 stage IIIB, 24 stage IV, 4 stage IIIA; GC arm: median age 56 years, 87% male, 27 stage IIIB, 23 stage IV, 2 stage IIIA). Of the 101 patients evaluable for response, ORR was significantly higher on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (25% versus 6%, respectively; p=0.007). No complete responses occurred. TTP was longer on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (median 135 and 79 days, respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.065). Survival was not significantly different between the arms (median 293 and 197 days, respectively; p=0.16). Although significantly more thrombocytopenia was reported on the GC arm (22% and 4%, respectively; p=0.02), it did not lead to more transfusions (15 transfusions in 5 patients versus 14 transfusions in 6 patients, respectively). There was no significant difference in other safety parameters between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: GC appears to produce better response in advanced NSCLC than GV-GI, with a trend towards longer TTP. Except for more thrombocytopenia with GC, similar toxicity profiles were observed.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle). RESULTS: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004). CONCLUSIONS: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.     

Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus a cisplatin-based triplet versus nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group phase III randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the survival benefit obtained with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, a cisplatin-based triplet, and nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CG); cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CGV); or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for three cycles, followed by vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks for three cycles (GV-VI). RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-seven patients were assigned to treatment (182 CG, 188 CGV, 187 GV-VI). Response rates were significantly inferior for the nonplatinum sequential doublet (CG, 42%; CGV, 41%; GV-VI, 27%; CG v GV-VI, P =.003). No differences in median survival or time to progression were observed. Toxicity was higher for the triplet: grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (GC, 32%; CGV, 57%; GV-VI, 27%; P <.05); neutropenic fever (CG, 4%; CGV, 19%; GV-VI, 5%; P <.0001); grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (CG, 19%; CGV, 23%; GV-VI, 3%; P =.0001); and grade 3 to 4 emesis (GC, 22%; GCV, 32%; GV-VI, 6%; P <.0001). CONCLUSION: On the basis of these results, CG remains a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.     

Comparison of survival and quality of life in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two dose levels of paclitaxel combined with cisplatin versus etoposide with cisplatin: results of an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial.

PURPOSE: Treatment with cisplatin-based chemotherapy provides a modest survival advantage over supportive care alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To determine whether a new agent, paclitaxel, would further improve survival in NSCLC, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a randomized trial comparing paclitaxel plus cisplatin to a standard chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin and etoposide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was carried out by a multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-naive stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients randomized to receive paclitaxel plus cisplatin or etoposide plus cisplatin. Paclitaxel was administered at two different dose levels (135 mg/m(2) and 250 mg/m(2)), and etoposide was given at a dose of 100 mg/m(2) daily on days 1 to 3. Each regimen was repeated every 21 days and each included cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: The characteristics of the 599 patients were well-balanced across the three treatment groups. Superior survival was observed with the combined paclitaxel regimens (median survival time, 9.9 months; 1-year survival rate, 38.9%) compared with etoposide plus cisplatin (median survival time, 7.6 months; 1-year survival rate, 31.8%; P =. 048). Comparing survival for the two dose levels of paclitaxel revealed no significant difference. The median survival duration for the stage IIIB subgroup was 7.9 months for etoposide plus cisplatin patients versus 13.1 months for all paclitaxel patients (P =.152). For the stage IV subgroup, the median survival time for etoposide plus cisplatin was 7.6 months compared with 8.9 months for paclitaxel (P =.246). With the exceptions of increased granulocytopenia on the low-dose paclitaxel regimen and increased myalgias, neurotoxicity, and, possibly, increased treatment-related cardiac events with high-dose paclitaxel, toxicity was similar across all three arms. Quality of life (QOL) declined significantly over the 6 months. However, QOL scores were not significantly different among the regimens. CONCLUSION: As a result of these observations, paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2)) combined with cisplatin has replaced etoposide plus cisplatin as the reference regimen in our recently completed phase III trial.     

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: In randomized trials the combination of cisplatin and paclitaxel was superior to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide in advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although in nonrandomized trials, carboplatin and paclitaxel was a less toxic and highly active combination regimen, there remained concern regarding its efficacy in patients with small-volume, resected, stage III disease. Thus, we conducted a noninferiority trial of cisplatin and paclitaxel versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer and no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm after surgery were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 (arm I), or carboplatin area under the curve 7.5 intravenously plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 over 3 hours (arm II). RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-two eligible patients were enrolled onto the study. Prognostic factors were similar in the two treatment groups. Gastrointestinal, renal, and metabolic toxicity, as well as grade 4 leukopenia, were significantly more frequent in arm I. Grade 2 or greater thrombocytopenia was more common in arm II. Neurologic toxicity was similar in both regimens. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 19.4 and 48.7 months, respectively, for arm I compared with 20.7 and 57.4 months, respectively, for arm II. The relative risk (RR) of progression for the carboplatin plus paclitaxel group was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.03) and the RR of death was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a chemotherapy regimen consisting of carboplatin plus paclitaxel results in less toxicity, is easier to administer, and is not inferior, when compared with cisplatin plus paclitaxel.     

Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine versus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: from the German and Swiss Lung Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether cisplatin-based chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin [GVP]) prolongs overall survival in comparison to cisplatin-free chemotherapy (gemcitabine and vinorelbine [GV]) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1999 and June 2001, 300 patients with NSCLC stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion or stage IV disease were randomly assigned to receive GV (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) + vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or GVP (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) + vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 2 every 3 weeks). Primary end point of the study was overall survival. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven patients (GV, 143 patients; GVP, 144 patients) were eligible for analysis. At the time of analysis, April 15, 2002, 209 patients (GV, 103 patients; GVP, 106 patients) of 287 patients had died (73%). No statistically significant difference was observed for overall survival (P =.73; median survival, 35.9 versus 32.4 weeks; 1-year survival rate, 33.6% versus 27.5%) as well as for event-free survival (P =.35; median time-to-event, 19.3 versus 22.3 weeks) between GV and GVP. Two hundred fourteen patients were assessable for best response. The overall response rates were 13.0% for GV versus 28.3% for GVP (P =.004; complete responders, 0% versus 3.8%; partial responders, 13.0% versus 24.5%). Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity was significantly lower in the GV treatment arm compared with GVP. No statistically significant difference in quality of life was observed. CONCLUSION: In this phase III study, the cisplatin-based GVP regimen showed no survival benefit as first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC when compared with the cisplatin-free GV regimen, which was substantially better tolerated.     

Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 1.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.